For two regional health foundations, returns from the Kentucky Health Issues Poll are worth the investments.

With finite resources to advance their missions, regional health foundations should critically evaluate the investments they make. This article reviews the costs and associated benefits of large-scale public opinion polling--specifically, the annual Kentucky Health Issues Poll, which is sponsored by the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky and Interact for Health, formerly the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati. In addition to the information generated by the poll, the sponsoring foundations have benefited from increased name recognition and credibility with key stakeholders, including state policy makers and the media. Furthermore, jointly funding the poll has strengthened the relationship between the sponsoring foundations and has fostered other key collaborations. We find that the benefits from this poll more than justify its modest costs ($120,000 per year) and hope that this assessment may prove informative for other funders considering similar investments.

State responses to America's Health Rankings: the search for meaning, utility, and value.

CONTEXT: America's Health Rankings (AHR) is a state-level ranking of health determinants and outcomes produced annually by the United Health Foundation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine how states-particularly state health departments (SHDs)-respond to the annual AHR report. DESIGN: This study utilized a mixed methods approach involving key informant (KI) interviews in selected SHDs and a survey of the 50 state health officials (SHOs). SETTING: Key informants were interviewed at SHD offices in 9 states. The survey was conducted using an online format. PARTICIPANTS: Key informants included the SHO, senior staff in the SHD, and public health partners outside the SHD organization. Survey respondents were the SHO or designee.' MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness, use, utility, and value of AHR. RESULTS: Between the interviews and online survey, respondents from at least 40 of the 50 states indicated they were aware of AHR. Fifty-three interview sessions were conducted with 66 different KIs. Of the 37 states providing usable survey information, 20 (54%) reported that AHR was moderately, very, or extremely useful to their agency. Survey respondents indicated that the most common uses of AHR are for problem identification (54%), a source of data (49%), and for grant applications (38%). Regarding overall value of AHR to states, on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being no value to 10 being highly valuable, the mean score from survey respondents was 4.7. CONCLUSION: Although there is a wide spectrum of knowledge about AHR and responses to the annual report, the majority of SHDs respond in more positive than negative ways. Although the majority of SHOs are aware of AHR, there is less understanding of the methodology in the rankings at the programmatic level. The strongest call for change related to making the report more actionable, especially by identifying best practices.